New Delhi: The Army on Monday said it will
file a review petition against the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)
order to correct the records of the 1999 Kargil war following
allegations by a Brigadier that the battle accounts were
The petition is likely to be moved in the next couple of
"The Army has decided to file an appeal in the AFT in the
Brigadier Davinder Singh case. The Army records show that
there is no reason to correct them, as they are based on
battle performance reports filed by other senior officers," an
Army officer in the headquarters here said.
The AFT, which deals with legal disputes of the Armed
Forces, had in its May 27 order, on a plea from Davinder
Singh, then 70 Infantry Brigade Commander, asked the Army to
expunge his Annual Confidential Report(ACR) written by his
superior Lt Gen Kishan Pal and also directed it to correct
certain records of the Kargil conflict.
Singh moved the court in 2006, complaining that his
role as leader of the 70 Infantry Brigade in the Batalik
Sector had been underplayed and this had cost him a war medal
The Tribunal had gone by his contention that his
contribution had been incorrectly represented by Lt.Gen Pal.
In its order, the Tribunal, headed by Justice A. K.
Mathur, had held that "the ACRs were not written in an
objective and unbiased manner" by Lt Gen Pal.
Among the records it had wanted corrected were a
paragraph in the After Action Report of the war and two other
paragraphs in of the Kargil Account.
"The Army will in a day or two file the review petition
asking the AFT to quash the part with respect to the AAR and
Kargil Account, but would not challenge the expunging of the
ACR written by Lt Gen Pal," the officer said.
The officer also sought to counter some of the
contentions of Singh reported by a section of the media.
Regarding Singh being recommended for a Mahavir Chakra
for the Kargil battle, the officer said none of the records
with the Army suggested that he was ever cited for the
war-time gallantry medal.
He also said there was "no bias" in the ACRs written by
Lt Gen Pal that Singh had contended cost him a promotion to
the rank of Major General.
The officer said Singh was given five opportunities
before a promotion board between 2002 and 2006, two more than
an officer was in the normal course entitled to, but failed to
"Promotions are not based on any one event. It is based
on his entire career and he did not make it to the next post
based on his overall profile and comparative batch merit," he